Related

3 Replies to “24th January 2018 – Hurrah for Bishops being Bishops”

It seems to me the bishops have acted as we have come to expect rather than as we might once have hoped. They are attempting to hide behind protestations that ‘our doctrine remains unchanged’. But the reality is that they are casting the liturgy of baptism (which by its existence constitutes a formal statement of doctrine) out to the liberals and saying ‘do with it as you will to suit your purpose’.

And, once they have done with it what they will, their self-concocted suppositions will become de facto part of the doctrine of the CofE. This is how it’s now done in the pointy-hat world of maximum flexibility. The mind boggles. Of course it’s doctrinal chaos, but I guess it’s what you do when you’re being pushed by a General Synod that can’t wait or won’t bother to address theology. None of this is going to end well.

I think that contrary to your assertion that the bishops did exactly what Synod asked Jayne is correct that they didn’t.

This is England, and when, for example, my English wife says to me, Would you take out the rubbish, she isn’t asking a question but telling me to do it. If I replied, “No, I would rather continue reading my book (or listen to Radio Free Canterbury)”, we would have a minor marriage crisis.

Similarly, when Synod asks the bishops to consider commending a liturgy for transgender transitions they are not really asking an “outcome-neutral” question but are politely phrasing a demand, and if that demand is not met, we have a crisis.

You quote someone saying that a special liturgy would point away from the sacrament and to the individual; but that is precisely the understanding of “church” underlying these identity lobbies (and indeed the “progressive” worldview): the point of “church”, and indeed of all of society and its institutions, is to affirm and celebrate (not just accept or tolerate), without question, an individual’s view of him, her, or itself; anything else is “hate” and to be censored and punished.